Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: segan63 Date: Nov 19, 2012 6:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

I know what you mean about dissing Lemieux, "David Crosby physique". That was rough...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Nov 19, 2012 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

That comment was directed towards the Warner Bros. archivist in Burbank, not DL.

This post was modified by Reade on 2012-11-19 19:01:47

This post was modified by Reade on 2012-11-19 19:04:25

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: segan63 Date: Nov 19, 2012 12:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Ah, that makes more sense...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 19, 2012 6:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

No, a couple other, subtler things...like Betty saying, "I never talk to Lemieux. He wasn't there."
Or, worse, Lemieux talking through the writer's favorite show! "He talked through the transition." That's about the most damning thing you could say about the Dead's archivist... (You just know Latvala would keep quiet, except maybe to shout, "Wooh! Awesome! Play that again!")

To be fair, Lemieux probably thought he was still being interviewed and didn't pick up on the author's "shut up!" signals.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 7:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Actually I took that differently. The writer, Nick Paumgarten, is extremely skilled, and to me he was setting up a clever structure for his story.

He HAD to have people not care about his beloved 11/30, or it wouldn't have worked.

The show and his obsession with it allows him to bring his own story into the piece and to poke gentle fun at Deadheadland from the inside while elaborating its complexities and disconnects. One thing he's doing is exploring the taped legacy and the genuine and inevitable contrasts between the people who made the music (Phil), the people whose job it is to make quality decisions about marketable releases (Lemieux), and the people who are the reason it survives at all (the vast once-unwashed masses of often undiscriminating but highly opinionated and passionate Deadheads).

If Lemieux and Phil had raved about 11/30/80, you can bet your bottom dollar Paumgarten wouldn't have built his angle around it.

Why did he play 11/30 for Lemieux? To get him to go "Wooh! Awesome! I should release it!"? No, he wanted his reaction for the story.

Why did he ask Phil about 11/30? Because he really thought Phil would remember it? Uh, I doubt it. He wanted the expected reaction: "Sorry, can't remember it."

Betty's quote highlights another aspect of that disconnect: To some people at the historic heart of Deadland, it was a personal experience, their own life story, and even Lemieux doesn't "get it" and doesn't really matter because what he does isn't related to what the Dead is to them.

I don't see it as a slam on Lemieux. It's just highlighting different perspectives on what this thing "The Grateful Dead" was and is. Ultimately that's what the piece is about, using the angle of the taped legacy and the hook of his own love for a particular show and the way it was nurtured "back in the day" by those imperfect but treasured tapes.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Hmm, I see - a journalist's take.

He did focus a lot more on the "inside" of Deadheadland than the Deadheads' side, it seemed. Which makes sense - a story interviewing various people behind the Dead's tapes & releases is more 'newsworthy' & interesting than if he interviewed, say, the other members of his beloved Fox's Den about their reactions to the Dead!
It did leave a bit of a disconnect, though, between his descriptions of the objectionable Deadheads of old, and the barely mentioned Dead fans of today. Aside from dropping a few comments on the "silent minority of otherwise unobjectionable aesthetes" (ahem) and the cranky Archive review community, one wonders who is snapping up all those E72 box sets & downloading all those mediocre 1979 auds... Since the article seemed to be written for outsiders unfamiliar with the Dead scene, that felt like a little hole in the narrative. (On the other hand, he has enough space to drop in lots of interesting little details only fans would notice.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Yeah, he had to pitch it to his editor. Besides, this way he got paid to fly to California, see the vault, interview all kinds of folks up and down the coast, have lunch with Phil, etc.

Much better than calling up his old cronies. That's what you do when you work for a publication without a big expense account or a deadline of ... sheesh, what did he have? Six months or something? Holy moly.

I felt he wove his own perspective and experience into the story to represent the Deadhead side pretty well. The "Dead fans of today" are definitely in the article: they're Dr. Bob and folks going to what their wives call "Dork Star Orchestra" and old friends who gather in a Manhattan apartment to rave about the Fox and its "noodly bits."

Somehow I hear that part in a Monty Python voice. Ah, the noodly bits! Love it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Nov 19, 2012 10:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

That comment was directed towards the Warner Bros. archivist in Burbank, not DL.